Dear FOMers [moderator: please either withdraw my most recent post on this topic or print this]:
I need to retract most of what I said in my most recent post
about Ford's paper.
It is still true that the possibility of nonstandard axioms kills
his claimed consistency proof for Zermelo inside Zermelo.
But it seems that the definition of the "minimal interpretation"
does enforce the witness property, which means that some of the other
things I said can't be true.
--Randall Holmes
h